“tested party”

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

114/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 115/Mum/2025 External Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. No internal CUP was available with the assessee as AE was treated as the tested party. The method of determining the ALP of the transactions by assessee in the TP study was as under:- “1. The credit rating ... that of the AE were searched. The average at which comparable companies have taken loan is arm length price. The AE was treated as tested party.” 3. 4.8. Assessee had also provided details in the TP study report regarding the credit rating of the borrower (Mauritius AE):- “2.1 Creditworthiness

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Asr Multimetals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the assessee for selecting power consuming unit as a tested party and rejecting TPO's act of selecting the power generating company as tested party for benchmarking of Specified Domestic Transactions of inter unit transfer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Asr Multimetals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the assessee for selecting power consuming unit as a tested party and rejecting TPO's act of selecting the power generating company as tested party for benchmarking of Specified Domestic Transactions of inter unit transfer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Asr Multimetals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the assessee for selecting power consuming unit as a tested party and rejecting TPO's act of selecting the power generating company as tested party for benchmarking of Specified Domestic Transactions of inter unit transfer

Kantar Analytics India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Firefly Market Reserch India Private Limited (Successor of Analytics Quotient Service India Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

mark-up on the cost arrived at, in rendering these services The Ld.TPO noted that the TPSR recorded that the AE was treated as tested party for the purposes of determining the appropriateness of 5 and 10% mark-up and that the assessee analysed the services in two categories ... services entailing a mark-up of 10 percent', the economic analysis for both the mark-ups is explained in the ensuing paragraphs. Selection of tested party The choice of the tested party should be consistent with the functional analysis of the transaction. As a general rule, the tested party

Lintas India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 16(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Lintas India Private Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department Or A Wing, 16Th Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Parinee Crescenzo, Income Tax, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Circle 16(1), Bandra (East), 1) National Faceless Mumbai – 400 051 Assessment Centre (Nafac), Vs. Pan: Aaacl0124F Delhi 2)Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain, Ld. A.R. Shri Karnik Kansara, Ld. A.R Ms. Neha Rai, Ld. A.R. Ms. Sakshi Chimanani, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.05.2023, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel-1) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2021-22. 2 M/S. Lintas India Private Limited

Need- Evidence- benefit test, based on OECD guidelines. (ii) As regards the stand of the TPO in rejecting the foreign AE's as a tested party, we find that the assessee did not establish as to how the AE's can be treated as tested party ... least complex entity. In this regard with respect to the issue of treating the AE's as a tested party, it is relevant to point out the recent decision of Hon'ble ITAT which has discussed in principle the issue whether the A. E's can be treated

Shell India Markets Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nMS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

TNMM) as the most appropriate method, with Operating Profit to Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI), and selected itself as the tested party. Since the SBO IT Bengaluru platform rendered both software development as well as ITES/back-office support services, the assessee undertook two separate benchmarking analyses ... return. In its transfer pricing study, the assessee again adopted TNMM with OP/OC as PLI and itself as the tested party. For this segment, the assessee identified 9 comparables with an arm's length margin range of 5.15% to 9.28%, and concluded that its 8% mark-up fell within

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-1(4) Earlier With ACIT(Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, theappeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly

Bench: The Hon’Bleunder Section 255(4) Of The Act. The Points Of Difference Were Thereafter Referred To The Hon’Blefor Resolution. The Hon’Blehas Now Rendered His Detailed Opinion & The Appeals Have Been Placed Before Us To Pass The Consequential

pricing analysis was undertaken to ascertain the ALP of the transaction. He submitted, the Rayon Plant, being the manufacturing unit, was considered as the tested party and the rate at which the Rayon plant purchased electricity from GUVNL was treated as internal CUP available for benchmarking the transaction of sales/supply ... specific characteristics of goods and services has to be the other comparability factor. 10. Learned counsel submitted, TPO took the CPP as the tested party and thereafter called upon the power generating companies’ to furnish information relating to the rate at which the power generating companies sold/ supplied power